Constitutional reform

Discussion in 'Politics' started by flaja, Dec 4, 2006.

  1. flaja
    Offline

    flaja Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    363
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +10
    Attainder of Corruption:
    The assets of any person, and the spouse and children thereof, who has held any office of public trust or profit under the U.S. or under any one of the several states, may be seized in accordance with law upon that person’s criminal conviction of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office.

    Requirements for electors for all offices of public trust in the United States:
    1. U.S. citizen
    2. 21 years old or serving in the armed forces of the United States
    3. 1 year a resident in the state and district wherein the election is conducted
    4. Not been convicted of any felony under the United States or under any one of the several states providing that the President of the United States and the Executive authority of the state wherein the person resides have removed this disability
    5. Demonstrate once in every term of 6 years the competency which Congress may require for naturalized citizens
    6. Pay a poll tax not to exceed $20 dollars or a higher amount established by Congress at the time of the election
    7. Register with authorities which Congress may designate to maintain elector records
    8. Be under oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the state wherein they reside

    General office eligibility for all offices of public trust under the U.S. Constitution or the Constitution of any one of the several states:
    1. Native born U.S. citizen
    2. Resident of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to two times the term of the office sought at the time of election
    3. Has not served as legal counsel under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the jurisdiction of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to ten years prior to the time of election (lawyers cannot seek public office)
    4. Has not served in any other office of public trust under the U.S. or any one of the several states within a period of six years prior to the time of election (cannot leave one office to serve in another)
    5. Has not served as a officer in any publicly traded corporation within a period of six years prior to the election (reduce corporate influence over government)
    6. Receive a majority of the votes cast in the election for the office sought except when offices are assigned in proportion to the votes cast (I support proportional representation for all multi-seat elected government bodies)
    7. Has not served more than two consecutive terms in the office sought
    8. May not serve as legal counsel under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the jurisdiction of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to ten years after the expiration of the term of the office held (lawyers cannot profit by litigation that results from laws they supported while in office)
    9. May not serve as an officer or board member of any corporation for a term of 10 years after leaving office (a politician cannot be rewarded by corporations they aided while serving in public office)

    Additional requirements per office:
    Eligibility to serve as President
    Attained the age of 50 years

    Eligibility to serve as U.S. Representative
    Attained the age of 21 years

    Eligibility to serve as U.S. Senator
    Attained the age of 40 years


    Alternative Parliamentary system:

    Senate:
    1. One senator from each state appointed by the executive authority therein with the advice and consent of the legislature therein.
    2. Four-year term.
    3. One-quarter of the senators chosen every year.
    4. No power to originate legislation or amend legislation that has been approved by the House of Representatives.
    5. Shall have the power to try all impeachments under such rules as the House of Representatives may devise. Conviction by 2/3 of all Senators. Impeached person is to be immediately removed from office and subject to civil and criminal penalties that may apply.

    House of Representatives:
    1. Each state will have 1 representative for every 200,000 votes cast therein for President in the last election.
    2. Chosen by proportional representation with allowances for write-in and no party candidates.
    3. Term shall be concurrent with the term of the President and may not to exceed 5 years.
    4. Term shall begin on the 6th Tuesday after the last election for representatives.
    5. Have the power to determine the date on which the President and Representatives are chosen by issuing a writ of election, but the election must be held on 13th Tuesday after the writ is issued and no more than 1 election may be held within any period of 6 months.
    6. Shall have no power to alter legislation that is submitted by the President.
    7. Shall have the power of impeachment.

    President:
    1. Chosen by popular vote providing that the winning candidate wins a majority of the national vote and a majority of the vote in a majority of the states.
    2. Chosen by the House of Representatives with each state having 1 vote in the event that no candidate wins a majority in a majority of the states.
    3. Term shall be concurrent with the term for Representatives and may not to exceed 5 years.
    4. Term to begin on the 6th Tuesday after the last election.
    5. Have the power to determine the date on which the President and Representatives are chosen by issuing a writ of election, but the election must be held on 13th Tuesday after the writ is issued and no more than 1 election may be held within any period of 6 months.
    6. Have the power to introduce legislation in the House of Representatives.
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    On what basis do you advocate this random and very clearly arbitrary changes?
     
  3. USViking
    Offline

    USViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,452
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Ratings:
    +69
    Attainder of Corruption:
    The assets of any person, and the spouse and children thereof, who has held any office of public trust or profit under the U.S. or under any one of the several states, may be seized in accordance with law upon that person’s criminal conviction of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office.

    USV: NO. THE PRESENT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE PROHIBITING
    EXCESSIVE FINES SHOULD REMAIN IN FORCE. ASSETS AS SUCH
    SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE UNLESS OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF
    "HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS".



    Requirements for electors for all offices of public trust in the United States:
    1. U.S. citizen

    USV: OK (isn't this a requirement now?)



    2. 21 years old or serving in the armed forces of the United States

    USV: NO. IN FACT PERSONS ON ACTIVE DUTY SHOULD
    BE BARRED FROM HOLDING OFFICE (isn't this so now?-
    I have never heard of anyone on active duty holding
    public office) THEY HAVE ENOUGH WEIGHTY RESPONSIBILITY
    AS IS.



    3. 1 year a resident in the state and district wherein the election is conducted

    USV: OK (aren't they now?)



    4. Not been convicted of any felony under the United States or under any one of the several states providing that the President of the United States and the Executive authority of the state wherein the person resides have removed this disability

    USV: DOES THIS MEAN A PARDONED FELON MAY
    RUN FOR OFFICE? IF SO, NO.



    5. Demonstrate once in every term of 6 years the competency which Congress may require for naturalized citizens

    USV: NO.



    6. Pay a poll tax not to exceed $20 dollars or a higher amount established by Congress at the time of the election

    USV: NO! POLL TAX?!- WHY? FORGET IT.



    7. Register with authorities which Congress may designate to maintain elector records

    USV: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?



    8. Be under oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the state wherein they reside

    USV: DON'T THEY NOW? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?



    General office eligibility for all offices of public trust under the U.S. Constitution or the Constitution of any one of the several states:
    1. Native born U.S. citizen

    USV: NO. I THINK NATURALIZED CITIZENS SHOULD BE
    PERMITTED TO HOLD ANY OFFICE.



    2. Resident of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to two times the term of the office sought at the time of election

    USV: NO. I AM NOT SURE WHAT IF ANY RESIDENCY
    REQUIREMENT I WOULD PREFER, BUT TWO TIMES
    THE TERM OF OFFICE SOUGHT IS WAY TOO LONG.

    ALSO, THIS CONTRADICTS #3 ABOVE.



    3. Has not served as legal counsel under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the jurisdiction of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to ten years prior to the time of election (lawyers cannot seek public office)

    USV: NO. I AM NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE DOMINANT ROLE
    PLAYED BY LAWYERS, BUT I WOULD NOT DISCRIMINATE
    AGAINST ANY PROFESSION ON ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
    FOR OFFICE.



    4. Has not served in any other office of public trust under the U.S. or any one of the several states within a period of six years prior to the time of election (cannot leave one office to serve in another)

    USV:NO



    5. Has not served as a officer in any publicly traded corporation within a period of six years prior to the election (reduce corporate influence over government)

    USV: NO. WE COULD PROBABLY USE MORE BUSINESSMEN
    IN OFFICE RATHER THAN LESS.



    6. Receive a majority of the votes cast in the election for the office sought except when offices are assigned in proportion to the votes cast (I support proportional representation for all multi-seat elected government bodies)

    USV: NO.



    7. Has not served more than two consecutive terms in the office sought

    USV: YES.



    8. May not serve as legal counsel under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the jurisdiction of the state and district for which the office is elected for a period of time equal to ten years after the expiration of the term of the office held (lawyers cannot profit by litigation that results from laws they supported while in office)

    USV: NO. THE RETIRED OFFICIAL MIGHT BE SAID TO PROFIT
    FROM SUCH LAWS WHILE WORKING IN ANY OF A NUMBER OF
    JOBS, PERHAPS ALL JOBS. A RETIRED POLITICIAN SHOULD BE
    ABLE TO SUPPORT HIMSELF.



    9. May not serve as an officer or board member of any corporation for a term of 10 years after leaving office (a politician cannot be rewarded by corporations they aided while serving in public office)

    USV: NO. SEE #8.

    I MIGHT GET TO THE REST LATER.
     
  4. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,320
    Thanks Received:
    2,016
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,818
    Most of the "revision" the Constitution needs, is the same "revision" that our immigration laws need: None. We merely have to start obeying what it says. That would be a pretty radical change in and of itself.

    But if you really what to change anything in the Constitution, I'd suggest:

    1.) Repeal the 17th amendment (popular election of Senators)

    2.) Forbid involuntary withholding of income taxes from paychecks. Make it an optional "opt-in" policy for each taxpayer. Withholding won't be done unless the taxpayer specifically asks for it. Everyone else has to send in check(s) on their own. All taxes for a calendar year, must be paid in full by a given resolution day (currently April 15 of the following year). Taxpayers can make weekly or monthly payments if they wish, or can pay a lump sum, or etc.

    3.) Mandate that the date for resolution of income taxes (currently April 15) occur between one and seven days before the regular date of national elections (currently the 1st Tuesday in November). One way to accomplish this would be to make Tax Day the Monday before the first Tuesday in November. Or maybe the Friday before the first Tuesday, or etc.

    4.) Amend the 14th amendment to say that all persons born within the U.S., one or both of whose parents are U.S. citizens,, are citizens of the U.S.

    5.) Insert the word "explicitly" after the word "not" in the 10th amendment, as a sop to those who don't believe the 10th already means exactly that.


    Suggestions 2 and 3 above, will work together to reduce government back down to the levels it should be. When people start realizing just how much cash they have to fork over to the govt for the "services" they receive, and are presented with the opportunity immediately afterward to decide just which "services" they want and who should run them, a new equilibrium will be reached, fiarly quickly, and at the direct command of the people.

    Suggestion 5 merely helps the process along by pointing out that we agreed to such restrictions long ago. Suggestion 1 restores the Senate to its original primary purpose, which was to protect the sovereignity of the states against an encroaching Federal government.
     
  5. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    I have a better idea. Replace suggestions 2 and 3 with a total repeal of the 16th ammendment. Income taxes are oppressive and anti-capitalistic at best, a mere tool of the class warfare whores most of the time. What we need is a replacement. *cough*FairTax*cough*
     
  6. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,320
    Thanks Received:
    2,016
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,818
    The idea has some merit. However, coming off income taxes "cold turkey" can hurt a lot. My suggestions really changed no tax structure at all... they merely put people in the position of (a) knowing how much theuy're paying, and (b) being able to do something about it immediately. I believe that the combination of these two, will result in the same thing you're trying to do... except that the people will be able to determine the rate at which we come off the government teat.

    I greatly favor the idea that any radical change, must be initiated and directed by the people themselves. My suggestions accomplish that. Mostly be removing the major deceit that politicians put in place in the 1930s to insulate people from their effects.
     
  7. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    www.fairtax.org

    It's in the works. :D
     
  8. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,320
    Thanks Received:
    2,016
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,818
    Hobbitt, from what I've heard the FairTax proposal simply redistributes the tax burder. It does not lessen it.

    The country's biggest financial problem, is that it spends way too much on government programs. Making Peter pay more and Paul pay less, does not change the overall problem.

    Showing Peter and Paul just how much they are paying, and reminding them how onerous those payments are, wile giving them a chance to lessen the overall burder on everyone, has the best chance of success IMHO.
     
  9. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    The FairTax makes economic sense, shifts the tax burden, and eliminates income tax as a method of class warfare, not to mention that federal tax will be printed on every reciept you get from products you buy. It makes the tax system transparent, which, in turn gets people wondering what they're paying for. As long as income tax can be used as a cloak-and-dagger pyramid scheme, you're not going to see the cloak come off. In fact, when withdrawal was first introduced, the politicians were so eager to pass it that they a) played on people's patriotism, claiming withdrawal made fighting the war easier, b) paid Disney to make a Donald Duck cartoon praising the benefits of withdrawal, and c) forgave an entire year's worth of taxes just to get it passed. The FairTax is something people can get behind, while making withdrawal an option isn't attractive enough to the common man to create the kind of revolution needed to overturn one of congress' most useful tools.
     
  10. flaja
    Offline

    flaja Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    363
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +10
    So you think it is OK for someone in public office to rob the government, i.e., the taxpayers, and hide what they have taken by putting it in the names of their spouse and children?

    True, but this requirement doesn’t stop illegals from going to the polls.

    Huh? Do you not know what the term “elector” means? I would allow 18 year-olds to serve in the military, but if you are not in the military you should be 21 before you can vote. This provision has nothing to do with holding public office.

    Depends on the location; this is not a nationwide reqirment.

    A pardoned felon could vote. I haven’t thought about baring them from holding public office. As it stands now a pardon erases all legal trace of guilt and restores all civil rights. As far as I know a pardoned felon can hold public office now.

    Why not? Why shouldn’t voters take a citizenship test once in a while?

    So you want us to allow welfare recipients to vote, thereby giving us office holders that will perpetuate the welfare state?

    Registering to vote, which is not required in all places now, i.e., we don’t always have a way to determine ahead of time who is and is not eligible to vote.

    This is a rather simple concept.

    Even in light of 9-11?

    I want to stop the opportunists like Hillary Clinton who seek to represent a community they have never lived in before seeking public office.

    No it does not as long as a term of office is not less than a year. By living in a place for two times the length of the term for a public office you would automatically live in the place for year and thus be eligible to vote. For example: If you live in one city for 6 months and then move to another city in the same state and stay there for another 6 months, you would be able to vote for governor, but you wouldn’t be able to vote for congressman if the two cities are in different congressional districts and you wouldn’t be able to vote for mayor in the city you moved to until you have lived there another 6 months.

    So you don’t mind allowing people whom you know could personally profit by what they do in public office to hold public office?

    Why not? How well did GWB serve the people of Texas while he spent a year running for the White House in 2000? How well can Hillary represent the state of New York if she spends the next 2 years running for president?

    You mean MBAs like George W. Bush? You are a fool.

    What do you have against democracy? Why are you willing to suffer an office holder who does not have the support of a majority of the electorate?

    If a lawyer writes law, there is bound to be litigation, which will give the lawyer a financial incentive to write laws that are as complicated and convoluted as possible. If you don’t have a problem with this, you are an absolute fool.

    So you don’t mind letting politicians take bribes?
     

Share This Page